This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Three years on, Creation Museum is evolving

Three years on, Creation Museum is evolving - Comments

Matt B's Avatar Comment 1 by Matt B

It's a good thing science is around to help them build a place like this; architectural mathematics, electrical robots, movie projectors, structural engineering, not to mention the basics like modern construction techniques, lighting, and air conditioning.

Now if you'll excuse us ... "Science is wrong, it's all in the bible!"

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 23:37:36 UTC | #510963

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 2 by AtheistEgbert

Proof that religion is big business.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 00:01:54 UTC | #510972

Saganic Rites's Avatar Comment 3 by Saganic Rites

Just had a read of the original article on the religidiot (like village idiot but far more stupid) site and noted this (emphasis mine);

In fact, more than three years after it opened ............. Last month (August), the Creation Museum counted more than 1.2 million guests since it opened in 2007, he added. While Ham and Looy expected attendance to be high for the first year because of the curiosity factor—there were about 500,000 guests in the museum’s first year—no one predicted the continuing growth in attendance.

So; 500,000 in the first year and 1.2 million in three years would mean that years 2 and 3 managed an average of 350,000 p/a; how the crap does that constitute 'continuing growth in attendance'? Don't tell me they're now distorting statistical mathematics to suit!

Updated: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 00:17:44 UTC | #510975

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 4 by mordacious1

Comment 3 by Godless But Not Clueless

I noticed their math skills also. Then again, they convert 4.5 billion years into 6,000 years...

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 00:35:43 UTC | #510984

mirandaceleste's Avatar Comment 5 by mirandaceleste

And it's all tax-exempt

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 00:49:07 UTC | #510987

Saganic Rites's Avatar Comment 6 by Saganic Rites

I also saw, right at the end of the article, that they are doing a 'live' nativity. I wonder if this involves the birth? Which reminds me of the time at school that I 'proved' that Mary could easily have become pregnant, with no assistance from him upstairs. Basically, it centred around the fact that sperm, if ejaculated onto (rather than inside) the vaginal entrance, can 'slip in' if not quickly and carefully cleaned off (imagine the poor sex education teacher, standing in front of a class-full of hormone-ravaged teens, imparting that gem as a warning against 'heavy petting'). So, when I suggested to our R.E. teacher that maybe Joseph suffered chronic premature ejaculation, I thought that I had solved a 2000-year old mystery; sadly, what I had actually done was to condemn my long-suffering buttocks to yet another visit from the cane.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 00:54:05 UTC | #510990

Charisma's Avatar Comment 7 by Charisma

I don't know whether to laugh, or to weep.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 01:32:02 UTC | #511008

zeerust2000's Avatar Comment 8 by zeerust2000

All I can do is shake my head in disbelief. And Ken Ham is an Aussie......I'm sorry you have to put up with him over there (but kinda glad he's not over here peddling this insanity)

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 03:30:08 UTC | #511032

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 9 by mordacious1

Yes, those antipodean imports are definately a problem. Ken Ham, Mel Gibson and Ray Comfort (kiwi) to name three. Please get back to sending us this.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 03:57:14 UTC | #511036

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 10 by Stevehill

I noticed their math skills also. Then again, they convert 4.5 billion years into 6,000 years...

A factor of 1/750,000. Why probably explains how an "education" which most of us dawdle through over 18 years is self-evidently deemed complete in 42 seconds, if my maths is accurate. Just about long enough to be told the first few chapters of Genesis are all you need in life, and mind where you drag your knuckles on the way out.

@Godless But Not Clueless: I got into trouble at school for arguing that either Mary consented to having a fling with God, which made her a slut, or God raped her, which made him a very dubious role model.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 06:17:03 UTC | #511052

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 11 by Jos Gibbons

Comment #510975 by Godless But Not Clueless

Let me guess. (To make the parody below more authentic I've used the Americanism "math" instead of "maths", which is what I as a Briton would call mathematics.)

That (1,200,000-500,000)/2<500,000 is based on math, which is only a theory. The axioms are unproven assumptions. That numbers differ is equivalent to 0 not being 1, but they just assume that*. It keeps changing when they add new numbers (fractions, zero, irrationals, negatives, complex numbers etc.) There are unsolved gaps, some of which they've worked on fruitlessly for centuries; Goldbach's conjecture is worse than Darwinism! It's only believed as part of a conspiracy; global warming is a myth people believe just because the temperature is a bigger number than it used to be (and of course we have to trust the mathematicians on which numbers are bigger than other ones). It contradicts the Bible, what with pi being 3 and that list (I forget where it is) of what math says are 5 people but the Bible clearly says are 6. And when the evil Jews used evil maths to calculate the date of creation they got 3,761 BC, whereas we know it's 4,004 BC. Teach the controversy!

Well, that makes about as much sense as normal creationist arguments.

(* 0 and 1 are respectively the additive and multiplicative identities, and a system of arithmetic can indeed be constructed in which they are equal; it's just that, if all the other axioms are preserved, this ends up meaning that there's only 1 number.)

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 08:04:59 UTC | #511073

TrickyDicky's Avatar Comment 12 by TrickyDicky

An average of less than a 1000 visitors a day supports more than 2000 jobs in the region!

Give me a couple of fish and some bread and I will show you another miracle.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 08:30:03 UTC | #511079

jel's Avatar Comment 13 by jel

@stevehill

I've got to remember this next time some catholic starts on about Mary.

"I got into trouble at school for arguing that either Mary consented to having a fling with God, which made her a slut, or God raped her, which made him a very dubious role model."

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 09:35:20 UTC | #511105

Balance_Maintained's Avatar Comment 14 by Balance_Maintained

“We have consistently surpassed our own forecasts for attendance,” said Mark Looy, a co-founder of the museum and spokesman for the center. Last month (August), the Creation Museum counted more than 1.2 million guests since it opened in 2007, he added.

If you assume, most likely correctly, that the first year would have attracted more novelty crowds, then an accurate estimate of growth could not be started until the novelty crowd died away, leaving behind whatever would make up a more stable trend of attendance. This is an extremely common phenomenon in business analysis. If you don't believe it, ask apple how they forecast their markets every time they release a new product and I am sure you will see a much higher prediction of sales when an item is first introduced then is predicted for subsequent years. By the way, the growth statement was made by the reporter, not the Museum as shown by the lack of quotation marks.

Also being that this is a museum and not a church, any earnings are most certainly not tax free.

1000 visitors a day must be fed, housed, entertained, fueled, rented cars, etc. The businesses that provide those services would need additional services to maintain them as well, lawyers, accountants, delivery people, etc. I can see it creating 2000 jobs. Though I would be curious as to where they got the statistics. Easily verifiable by checking with the local chamber of commerce.

I don't particularly care for the theme of the museum, but if you continue to misrepresent the presented evidence then you are no better than those that you continually criticize. If you want 'scientist', and their supporters, to be hailed as unbiased, accurate, and dedicated to the truth, then perhaps you should start showing some of those qualities.

As a side note, how does the explanation you provided of Mary get past her hymen if she were a virgin :P

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:36:00 UTC | #511208

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 15 by mordacious1

Comment 14 by Balance_Maintained

Also being that this is a museum and not a church, any earnings are most certainly not tax free.

The museum is funded through Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham's orginization, which he calls a ministry). From his site: "All gifts to Answers in Genesis, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, are tax deductible". If the museum is part of the "ministry", then the profits also would be tax-deductible, like a fund-raiser.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:51:33 UTC | #511242

Balance_Maintained's Avatar Comment 16 by Balance_Maintained

The museum could donate the profits to the ministry and get a tax deduction for it, but they would still have to pay taxes, though certainly reduced, on the profits earned by the museum itself. Could possibly considered a tax shelter, but not 100% tax free. The government will get their slice. No worries about that.

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:21:25 UTC | #511266

JQisAwesome's Avatar Comment 17 by JQisAwesome

I suspect many of the visitors are there sarcastically. Young people like myself enjoy the novelty of bad things - like watching a corny movie or wearing an "ironic" t-shirt.

I can imagine a group of bearded college dudes, chuckling in the corner on their Blackberry. "You've got to check this out, they have a brontosaurus with a saddle on it!"

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:23:08 UTC | #511267

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 18 by mordacious1

Comment 16

I don't think that's necessarily true. Let's say I buy one of RD.Net's wonderful coffee mugs from the RD.Net store. I pay sales tax, but they don't have to pay taxes on their profit off my cup because they're a non-profit. I'm sure (but not positive) that Ham has linked the museum to the non-profit in the same way the RD.Net store is linked to RD.Net.

Although they don't specifically say so, I inferred from the AiG site that the museum was originally built ($27 million) from tax-deductible contributions made to AiG. Property taxes are probably paid though, (although they do have a chaplain at the museum to minister to spiritual needs, so they might consider part of the museum a church).

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 16:05:52 UTC | #511286

Balance_Maintained's Avatar Comment 19 by Balance_Maintained

Ask a tax lawyer. You can find them in the fossil record right next to prehistoric ancestors of vultures and hyenas :P

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:38:24 UTC | #511377

AUSloth's Avatar Comment 20 by AUSloth

Astounding!! Was it PT Barnum who said there is a sucker born every minute? I think he grossly underestimated. $27 million in start up costs donated then 3 years of gate takings leading the expansion of this monument to blindness. Seems endless the resources people will commit to the cause of misinformation. How would you like to see Ken Ham turn around in a couple of years cash in the business and leave saying "it was all a load of bollocks - I just wanted the cash". Mordacious 1 - the antipodean migration of the disturbed to USA works for me, leaves us with a few less problems. Got any room for a politician or two? Tony Abbott and Bob Katter would thrive amongst your evangelical communities. Comment 17 strikes a chord - I would probably visit the museum for much the same reason as I would visit Robert Ripley's

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:33:29 UTC | #511492

William Moody's Avatar Comment 21 by William Moody

For such great scientific minds the open mindedness among you is amazing??? I thought this sight was to do with civilised and rational argument, yet I see little of that above. I wonder if any of you have read any of the Ken Ham or other creation scientists' books?

Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:56:06 UTC | #511504

zengardener's Avatar Comment 22 by zengardener

My Presbyterian Frenemies suggested that we take a trip to this abomination. I said that I would not present this to my son as if it were true, and not until he developed strong critical thinking skills. Also the long drive and excessive ticket price.

I could go to the field museum in Chicago for less, and see real dinosaur fossils.

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 03:43:30 UTC | #511589

LP22's Avatar Comment 23 by LP22

Hmm...they take your money and tell you lies. How is that not fraud? This has to be some kind of offense against education. You can't just lie to children. I guess because its religion they can get away with lies while getting rich and not paying taxes.

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 04:29:16 UTC | #511594

Mrkimbo's Avatar Comment 24 by Mrkimbo

He may be an Aussie but he's following in the footsteps of two Americans: to wit, Barnum and Bailey. "There's a sucker born every minute."

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:57:06 UTC | #511614

alphcat's Avatar Comment 25 by alphcat

william Moody comment 21. Yes I've read one of Ken Ham's books and been onto their website and listened when one of their speakers came to my town (in the UK unfortunately). I did so because I felt it was a fair and open minded thing to do after being introduced to them by the stupidest and most unpleasant man I have ever met in my life. He returned my books on evolution unopened by the way (why-if it was so obviously wrong he'd have been able to rip it to shreds as comprehensively as I did with his 'New Answers' book) and told me I was on my way to hell. Although at that time I had vague doubts about religion and could best be described as agnostic Ken Ham single handedly showed me that the people trying to convince me that there was a God were either out and out liars or so gullibly stupid they'd believe anything as long as it came from a Pastor alongside a request for some hard earned cash. If I were you I'd avoid them like the plague. Ken Ham helped me take that final step to atheism.

I've searched in vain, to find just one honest statement in any of the creationist works I've looked at and not been able to find any. If you are as open minded than I suggest checking some of their claims on TalkOrigins website or with genuine experts in each particular field who'll be able to direct you to the relevant evidence. I also suggest you investigate why none of their research is submitted for peer review?

I find it difficult to see Ken Ham as anything other than a professional con artist in it for the money (my opinion therefore should be exempt from libel?) Answers in Genesis UK is registered as a charity I believe and therefore exempt from tax here as well. A disgrace in my opinion.

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:53:06 UTC | #511652

William Moody's Avatar Comment 26 by William Moody

alphcat comment 25 Thanks for responding. I never met Ken Ham personally and can't judge his character and motives, but there are others I know who're involved in creation science because they genuinely believes in it. They're not dishonest and certainly not gullible, coming from science back grounds. While people are entitled to their opinion and can of course disagree with the findings of creation science, what disturbs me is at that there seems to be little desire in interact in scientific debate but just a mocking discounting of their views. I accept that there are fraudsters and many who peddle religion for personal profit but many do not. You've said that you've found no true statements in creationist teachings bit I struggle with how improbable it is that a random big bang formed this universe and that life was formed by chance. Sir Fred Hoyle the mathematician and astronomer said that the odds of a single cell being formed by random process was 1 in 10 to the par of 4,000. My mathematics aren't perfect but I think that that is as unlikely as me picking the box in 'Deal or no deal' with the £250,000 in it 1,000 times in a row. I just think it takes greater faith to believe this world and human life happened by chance that to believe there was a creator behind it all.

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:45:38 UTC | #512009

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 27 by God fearing Atheist

Comment 26 by William Moody :

Sir Fred Hoyle the mathematician and astronomer said that the odds of a single cell being formed by random process was 1 in 10 to the par of 4,000. My mathematics aren't perfect but I think that that is as unlikely as me picking the box in 'Deal or no deal' with the £250,000 in it 1,000 times in a row. I just think it takes greater faith to believe this world and human life happened by chance that to believe there was a creator behind it all.

Hoyle is probably underestimating.

The chance of a god spontaneously springing into existence is even lower.

Do you think evolution be natural selection works like that?

An honest answer would help. If you are genuinly ignorant, there are plenty of people here who can help. On the other hand, you could be an IDiot troll spreading lies.

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 22:13:11 UTC | #512018

William Moody's Avatar Comment 28 by William Moody

Comment 27 God fearing atheist.

I've never heard anyone teach that God spontaneously sprung into existence.

Sorry, what do you mean when you ask 'Do you think evolution by natural selection works like that that?'

Sun, 05 Sep 2010 22:26:21 UTC | #512023

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 29 by Tyler Durden

Comment 26 by William Moody :

alphcat comment 25 Thanks for responding. I never met Ken Ham personally and can't judge his character and motives, but there are others I know who're involved in creation science because they genuinely believes in it. They're not dishonest and certainly not gullible, coming from science back grounds.

While people are entitled to their opinion and can of course disagree with the findings of creation science, what disturbs me is at that there seems to be little desire in interact in scientific debate but just a mocking discounting of their views.

Creationism is religion i.e. "god-did-it". Why would any scientist waste their precious time interacting or debating such obvious nonsense - it does not explain anything, and science is interested in explaining the natural phenomena around us, not in baseless conjecture such as "god-did-it".

You've said that you've found no true statements in creationist teachings bit I struggle with how improbable it is that a random big bang formed this universe and that life was formed by chance.

Nobody knows how life first formed (Abiogenesis) but we do know how the diversity of life formed on Earth since then, Darwinian evolution by natural selection, certainly not a matter of chance, hence the word "selection".

I just think it takes greater faith to believe this world and human life happened by chance that to believe there was a creator behind it all.

I don't really care what you think, only what you can prove with sufficient evidence.

Any person postulating a "creator" for this world is ignorant, lazy, and deluded - considering what we know of cosmology, geology and physics. Perhaps you could explain to us why this "creator" decided to design such a world with moving plate tectonis thereby giving rise to earthquakes, volcanoes and tsumanis, which kill, injure and displace millions over the years.

Well?

Updated: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 22:36:08 UTC | #512026

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 30 by God fearing Atheist

Comment 28 by William Moody :

Sorry, what do you mean when you ask 'Do you think evolution by natural selection works like that that?'

A cell forming by "chance" i.e. " ... said that the odds of a single cell being formed by random process was 1 in 10 to the par of 4,000."

Updated: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 22:34:36 UTC | #512028